Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A Tool For Analysis of Costs On The Manufacturing of The Hull
A Tool For Analysis of Costs On The Manufacturing of The Hull
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320307726
CITATIONS READS
0 38
2 authors, including:
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by José Manuel Gordo on 10 October 2017.
J.M. Gordo
Centre for Marine Technology and Ocean Engineering (CENTEC), Instituto Superior Técnico,
Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal
M. Leal
One Ocean, Lisbon, Portugal
ABSTRACT: It is presented a tool for the analysis of costs in the early stages of preliminary and
detailed design in a shipyard. It was developed, within this study, a simple Excel worksheet that will
calculate several aspects of the construction budget and expected building times by adding simple input
data. The tool uses as example two case studies in different shipyards and may be easily modified in order
to be adopted by different shipyards. It allows the estimation of costs and help on the establishment of a
schedule for the execution of the hull.
743
2 COST MODEL TOOL estimates for a steel ship block steel work (Leal &
Gordo, 2017).
2.1 Cost structure On the main menu of the tool, shown in
Figure 1, the user is allowed to select several set-
Any shipbuilding will always pass through the
tings for each cost center and adjustment coeffi-
following phases (Van Dokkum, 2008) (Bachko &
cients of following activities: work’s preparation,
Hoffmann, 1980) with their respective associated
cutting processes, transportation and associated
costs:
meanings, forming and assemblage of plates and
• Contract signing stiffeners, used welding techniques. Complemen-
• Basic project tary information about shipyard capabilities and
• Detail production project material prices can be supplied.
• Ship hull construction In this worksheet it can be introduced the known
• Outfitting (piping, electricity, machinery and parameters of the budgeted ship’s block. Which are:
systems) the type of vessel, the location of the block along the
• Sea trials and certification vessel, overall dimensions and estimated weight. The
• Ship owner delivery complexity coefficients are automatically selected
after choosing the type of vessel and block. There
In between the above mentioned phases there
is an indicator of λ factor for verifying whether the
will also exist stages of quality control, transpor-
dimensions of the analyzed block are within the
tation, supervision and also plan approval from
limits of the case study examined in this paper.
shipyard, marine design office, ship owner, classifi-
In the main menu it is also possible to select the
cation societies and maritime flag authorities.
input data button that will lead to the data input
This cost model for manufacturing of the hull
screen visible in Figure 2.
will solely focus on production phases (detailed
Returning now to the main menu (Figure 1) you
engineering for production) and the phase of hull
can choose the cost estimate results option. In this
construction, except the union of blocks.
selected page (Table 1) it is possible to enter the
Within the construction phase of the hull, which
identification name of the block. All other values
is the main purpose of this study, one has the fol-
and graphics presented are the result of immediate
lowing steps:
calculation, and therefore cannot be changed.
• Parts, plates and stiffeners cut The result summary presents for instance the
• Plate union (bulkheads, floors and shell) distribution of costs by each cost center. It also
• Assembly and welding of frames and stiffeners estimates the necessary man-hours, consumables
to form panels and subsets amounts, required plates and stiffeners, etc. These
• Union of subsets to form ship blocks results depend on the input data and also on the
• Union of blocks to form the whole ship established settings.
This results output also includes some graphi-
For each one of these costs centers the idea is to
cal information about partial costs (Figure 3) and
apply a generic formula of the following type:
man-power (Figure 4).
It is interesting to note that, for the case under
Labour cost + Energetic cost + analysis Leal, half of the total cost is with material and
Cproc +Consumable materials cost + [ € ] (1) the second highest cost is the preparation of work.
+ Equipment cost
2.3 Cost centres configuration
The energy cost represents the electricity spent The costs associated with work’s preparation
with operation of equipment, materials costs are are configured for each shipyard as presented in
related to expenditures with supplies and materials Figure 5.
used by the process and finally the equipment costs
estimates the costs associated with the technologies
involved in the process. These 3 referred costs tend
to be lower than the labour costs.
744
Figure 2. Data input screen.
(
C p = Pb ⋅ γ b ⋅ CERp ⋅ MDOp + CEQp ) [ €] (2)
745
MDOp – Work preparation labour cost [€/Mh] The parameters for forming of a block are
CEQp – Work preparation equipment costs [€/t] configured for each shipyard as presented in
Figure 8.
The cutting costs of plates and stiffeners are
These costs will be estimated according to the
configured for each shipyard as presented in
weight amount of processed steel in the following
Figure 6.
simplified equation:
These costs are estimated in direct relation with
the produced weight of steel variable according to
the following simplified equation: Ce = Pb ⋅ (γ b ⋅ CERe ⋅ MDOe + CCe + CEQe ) (5)
Cc = Pb ⋅ (γ b ⋅ CERc ⋅ MDOc + CCc + CEQc ) [ € ] (3) CERe – Forming cost estimate relationship [Mh/t]
MDOe – Forming labor cost [€/Mh]
CCe – Forming consumables cost [€/t]
CERc – Cutting cost estimate relationship [Mh/t]
CEQe – Forming equipment costs [€/t]
MDOc – Cutting labor cost [€/Mh]
CCc – Cutting consumables cost [€/t] The parameters for the assemblage of the block
CEQc – Cutting equipment costs [€/t] are configured for each shipyard as presented in
Figure 9.
The parameters for transport resources are con-
These costs are estimated once again according
figured for each shipyard as presented in Figure 7.
to the variable of steel weight to be produced in the
These costs are estimated relatively to the pro-
following equation:
duced weight of steel variable in a simplified man-
ner by the following equation:
Cm = Pb ⋅ (γ b ⋅ CERm ⋅ MDOm + CCs + CEQm ) (6)
Ct = Pb ⋅ (γ b ⋅ CERt ⋅ MDOt + CEQt ) [ € ] (4)
CERm – Assembly cost estimate relationship [Mh/t]
MDOm – Assembly labor cost [€/Mh]
CERt – Transport cost estimate relationship [Mh/t]
CCs – Welding consumables cost [€/t]
MDOt – Transport labour cost [€/Mh]
CEQm – Assembly equipment costs [€/t]
CEQt – Transport equipment costs [€/t]
The tool considers 3 types of welding: flux
cored arc welding (FCAW), automatic FCAW, and
submersed arc welding (SAW).
The parameters for FCAW welding are
configured for each shipyard as presented in
Figure 10.
746
built (Ennis, et al 1997), observed in Table 3. After
analyzing the various case studies, it is proposed
the following cost estimation relationships (CER)
in accordance with the respective cost centers, as
shown in Table 4.
Note that this study does not take into account
the influence of the learning curve (Deschamps &
Trumbule, 2003). However, it can be applied a
discount on the number of hours spent on sister
ships blocks building on the construction of large
series of identical vessels. This happens due to the
experience gained in construction methodology,
Complexity Coefficient
Superstructure 1,00
Bow 1,35
Bow (with Bulb) 1,45
Stern 1,35
Stern (with Skeg) 1,45
Engine Room 1,50
Midship 1,10
Midship (Double 1,25
Bottom)
Figure 10. Typical welding parameterization.
Midship (Double 1,25
Side)
These costs are estimated for the produced
weight of steel in the simplified equation: Table 3. Complexity Coefficients according to vessel’s
type.
Cs = Pb ⋅ (γ b ⋅ CERs ⋅ MDOs + CCs + CEQs ) (7)
Complexity Coefficient
CERs – Welding cost estimate relationship [Mh/t] Crude Oil Tanker 0,90
MDOs – Welding labor cost [€/Mh] Product Tanker 1,13
CEQs – Welding equipment costs [€/t] Chemical Tanker 1,25
Bulk Carrier 0,86
2.4 Configuration of block’s parameters OBO Carrier 0,95
Container Ship 0,96
There are 8 available settings interfaces to config- RO-RO Ship 0,83
ure initial parameters: Work preparation, cutting, Ferry 1,25
transportation, forming, assembly, welding, steel Passenger Ship 3,00
and coefficients. Fishing Boat 2,20
Table 2 shows the proposed complexity factors Tug 0,80
to be multiplied to the cost of each activity, accord- Naval Research 1,25
ing to the location of the block along the vessel. Oceangoing Tug 1,00
The complexity factor is intended to compute
the degree of complexity of each block in com-
parison to the standard one which is considered to Table 4. Several proposed Cost Estimate Relationships.
be the block of a superstructure. The coefficient
CER
should be calculated by each shipyard according to
historical data acquired in previous ships. Never- Work Preparation ∂15 Mh/t
theless, the coefficient should not very much from Cutting + Forming ∂36 Mh/t
shipyard to shipyard because they represent basi-
Assembly + Welding ∂50 Mh/t
cally the complexity of the structure.
Work Preparation + Cutting + Transport + ∂100 Mh/t
It can also be adopted some adapted complexity Forming + Assembly + Welding
coefficients associated with the type of vessel to be
747
Table 5. Example of cost adjustment coefficients in costs associated with supplies and equipment used
relation to the shipyard location. in the production process are only a small portion
of the total costs.
Tuna Fishing Vessel of 31m LOA The created worksheet proves to be a very useful
Final Hull Mh Cost Coefficient tool for the initial approach of the budgeting of
price [€] cost [€] [est.] [€/Mh] a given shipbuilding steel work. It is customizable
according to the coefficients of productivity of
Portugal 3 152 305 966 453 70.85 1 each yard and adjustable levels of complexity for
(2011) each ship block type. It is also possible to update
Spain 3 732 745 1 027 338 75.32 1.1 values of skilled labour and material costs.
(2011)
Croatia 2 571 865 693 653 13 640 50.85 0.7
(2011) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
China 1 933 381 393 573 28.85 0.4
(2011) This paper reports a work developed in the
Portugal 1 024 994 298 196 21.86 0.3 project” Ship Lifecycle Software Solutions”,
(1995) (SHIPLYS), which was partially financed by the
European Union through the Contract No 690770
-SHIPLYS -H2020 -MG -2014−2015.
the simplification of some processes or even the
change in some production design details.
Adjusting coefficients may still be related to REFERENCES
where the ship is built, which basically takes into
account the cost of labor in other countries than Andritsos, F., & Prat, J. (2000). The Automation and
Portugal. The example shown in Table 5 compares Integration of Production Processes in Shipbuilding,
State-of-the-Art. European Commission Joint
quotation requested prices for the building of a Research Centre.
31 m fishing vessel taking into account different Bachko, N.L., & Hoffmann. (1980). Shipbuilding
shipyards worldwide. Costing and Contract Arrangements. Em Ship Design
All these factors can be multiplied one with and Construction. New York: The Society of Naval
other in order to obtain a final value of the block Architects and Marine Engineers.
complexity γb as discussed in (Leal & Gordo, 2017). Cahill, P., Shank, R., Crilly, P., Kelly, G., Jutla, T., &
Weeks, T. (2000). Implementation of a State of the
Art First Operations Shop in a Second Tier Shipyard.
3 CONCLUSIONS Journal of Ship Production,, 133–150.
Deschamps, L., & Trumbule, J. (2003). Cost Estimating.
Em Ship Design and Construction (Vol. 1). SNAME.
It is possible to divide the shipbuilding cost of a Ennis, K., Dougherty, J., Lamb, T., Greenwell, C., &
steel hull into 6 simplified parts, corresponding Zimmermann, R. (1997). Product Oriented Design
to different cost centres and through adjustment and Construction Cost Model. Ship Production
coefficients on the productivity of each process Symposium.
and complexity of implementing it, one can get Kolich, D., Storch, R., & Fafandjel, N. (2016). Optimiz-
corrected cost estimates. ing Shipyard Interim Product Assembly Using a Value
Regarding the simplified formulas for calculat- Stream Mapping Methodology. World Maritime Tech-
ing the costs for each production process described nology Conference.
Leal, M., & Gordo, J. (2017). Hull’s Manufacturing Cost
in this study, it appears that the most important Structure. Brodogradnja/Shipbuilding, 68(3), 1–24.
variables are the labour costs and productivity doi:10.21278/brod68301
associated with each process, which in turn is con- Van Dokkum, K. (2008). Ship Knowledge—Ship Design,
nected to the technology of the equipment used Construction and Operation. Dokmar: Maritime
and the degree of qualification of the worker. The Publishers B.V.
748